#michael hardt

[1000rh]

Imperial racism, or differential racism, in the society of control integrates others with its order and then orchestrates those differences in a system of control. Fixed and biological notions of peoples thus tend to dissolve into a fluid and amorphous multitude, which is of course shot through with lines of conflict and antagonism but none which appear as fixed and eternal boundaries. The surface of the imperial society of control continuously shifts in such a way that it destabilizes any notion of place.

– Michael Hardt, "The Global Society of Control" (1998)

[endlessandrea]

Lauren Berlant:

…

“I often talk about love as one of the few places where people actually admit they want to become different. And so it’s like change without trauma, but it’s not change without instability. It’s change without guarantees, without knowing what the other side of it is, because it’s entering into relationality.

The thing I like about love as a concept for the possibility of the social, is that love always means non-sovereignty. Love is always about violating your own attachment to your intentionality, without being anti-intentional. I like that love is greedy. You want incommensurate things and you want them now. And the now part is important.

The question of duration is also important in this regard because there are many places that one holds duration. One holds duration in one’s head, and one holds duration in relation. As a formal relation, love could have continuity, whereas, as an experiential relation it could have discontinuities.

When you plan social change, you have to imagine the world that you could promise, the world that could be seductive, the world you could induce people to want to leap into. But leaps are awkward, they’re not actually that beautiful. When you land you’re probably going to fall, or hurt your ankle or hit someone. When you’re asking for social change, you want to be able to say there will be some kind of cushion when we take the leap. What love does as a seduction for this is, and has done historically for political theory, is to try to imagine some continuity in the affective level. One that isn’t experienced at the historical, social or everyday level, but that still provides a kind of referential anchor, affectively and as a political project.“

[dipnotski]

Michael Hardt – Yıkıcı Yetmişler (2024)

Michael Hardt, yetmişlerdeki devrimci hareketleri alışılagelenden bambaşka bir bakış açısıyla yorumluyor. Ona göre bu hareketler altmışlarda doruk noktasına ulaşan sol hareketin bitişini ve yenilgisini ifade etmez. Aksine, bir yandan devrimci hareketlere yönelik şiddet ve baskının arttığı, öte yandan merkezcil ve hiyerarşik sol söylemin artık işe yaramadığı bir dönemde, yetmişlerdeki hareketler,…

[rwpohl]

karin hardt und viktor staal: via mala, josef von báky 1945

*

simone prüfer, pressekonferenz abrissarbeiten carolabrücke dresden, ard mediathek 09/13/24

[power-chords]

Creating a golem is dangerous business, as versions of the legend increasingly emphasize in the medieval and modern periods. One danger expressed particularly in medieval versions is idolatry. Like Prometheus, the one who creates a golem has in effect claimed the position of God, creator of life. Such hubris must be punished. In its modern versions the focus of the golem legend shifts from parables of creation to fables of destruction. The two modern legends from which most of the others derive date from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In one, Rabbi Elijah Baal Shem of Chem, Poland, brings a golem to life to be his servant and perform household chores. The golem grows bigger each day, so to prevent it from getting too big, once a week the rabbi must return it to clay and start again. One time the Rabbi forgets his routine and lets the golem get too big. When he transforms it back he is engulfed in the mass of lifeless clay and suffocates. One of the morals of this tale has to do with the danger of setting oneself up as master and imposing servitude upon others.

The second and more influential modern version derives from the legend of Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague. Rabbi Loew makes a golem to defend the Jewish community of Prague and attack its persecutors. The golem’s destructive violence, however, proves uncontrollable. It does attack the enemies of the Jews but also begins to kill Jews themselves indiscriminately before the rabbi can finally turn it back to clay. This tale bears certain similarities to common warnings about the dangers of instrumentalization in modern society and of technology run amok, but the golem is more than a parable of how humans are losing control of the world and machines are taking over. It is also about the inevitable blindness of war and violence. In H. Leivick’s Yiddish play, The Golem, for instance, first published in Warsaw in 1921, Rabbi Loew is so intent on revenge against the persecutors of the Jews that even when the Messiah comes with Elijah the Prophet the rabbi turns them away. Now is not their time, he says, now is the time for the golem to bathe our enemies in blood. The violence of revenge and war, however, leads to indiscriminate death. The golem, the monster of war, does not know the friend-enemy distinction. War brings death to all equally. That is the monstrosity of war.

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, 2004

[dailyanarchistposts]

Joy and the Spinozan current

To reduce these problems to a complete and final analysis would be to miss the point. The best thing would be an informal discussion capable of bringing about the subtle magic of wordplay.

It is a real contradiction to talk of joy seriously.

—Alfredo Bonanno[5]

Pursuing these questions took us on a long detour through a minor current of Western philosophy associated with Baruch Spinoza. Against the grain of European thought that sought to subdue life through rigid dualisms and classifications, Spinoza conceptualized a world in which everything is interconnected and in process.

This worldview meant that Spinoza was despised by most of his contemporaries, but his ideas have influenced numerous currents of radical theory and practice, including anarchism, autonomous Marxism, affect theory, deep ecology, psychoanalysis, post-structuralism, queer theory, and even neuroscience. We are drawing on a current that runs from Spinoza through Friedrich Nietzsche, Gustav Landauer, Michel Foucault, and Gilles Deleuze to contemporary radicals like the Invisible Committee, Colectivo Situaciones, Lauren Berlant, Michael Hardt, and Antonio Negri. What we have found exciting about this current is the focus on processes through which people become more alive, more capable, and more powerful together. For Spinoza, the whole point of life is to become capable of new things, with others. His name for this process is joy.

Joy? What? Doesn’t joy just mean happiness, with some vaguely Christian undertones? Later we’ll be more precise about joy, but for now we want to be clear that it is not the same thing as happiness. A joyful process of transformation might involve happiness, but it tends to entail a whole range of feelings at once: it might feel overwhelming, painful, dramatic and world-shaking, or subtle and uncanny. Joy rarely feels comfortable or easy, because it transforms and reorients people and relationships. Rather than the desire to exploit, control, and direct others, it is resonant with emergent and collective capacities to do things, make things, undo painful habits, and nurture enabling ways of being together.[6]

Moreover, Spinoza’s concept of joy is not an emotion at all, but an increase in one’s power to affect and be affected. It is the capacity to do and feel more. As such, it is connected to creativity and the embrace of uncertainty. Within the Spinozan current, there is no way to determine what is right and good for everyone. It is not a moral philosophy, with a fixed idea of good and evil. There is no recipe for life or struggle. There is no framework that works in all places, at all times. What is transformative in one context might be useless or stifling in another. What worked once might become stale, or, on the other hand, the recovery of old memories and traditions might be enlivening. So does this mean anything goes? People just do what they want? Rejecting universal arbiters like morality and the state doesn’t mean falling into “chaos” or “total relativity.” The space beyond fixed and established orders, structures, and morals is not one of disorder: it is the space of emergent orders, values, and forms of life.

[banffcentrelibraryandarchives]

❤️FEBRUARY ARTIST BOOK DISPLAY❤️

Love poem. Kathy Slade, Michael Joseph Phillips. Vancouver, BC : Publication Studio Vancouver, 2015. Love Letter to Anatolia. Tanya Evanson. Vancouver, BC : Mother Tongue Media, 2012.

Johnny Jungleguts : Life, Sex Fandom: Collected Writings. Jonny Jungleguts, Leslie Dick. Closing, 2017.

Loveland. Charles Stankievech. Berlin : K. Verlag, 2011.

The P*rnographic Connect-the-dots Book. Michael Riley. Paranoid Productions, 1974.

This is Still a Love Story: (The Twos). Emilee Nimetz. Canada : Emilee Nimetz, 2014.

On Every Station, Someone Else's Heartache. Bren Simmers. Victoria, BC : Rubber Boot Rodeo, 2002.

Tatti Wattles : A Love Story. Rachel Rosenthal. Santa Monica, CA : Smart Art Press, 1996.

The Procedures of Love. Michael Hardt. Ostfildern : Hatje Cantz, 2012.

Relationship Stories from Tunnel Mountain. Andrea deBrujin. Banff, AB: The Banff Centre, 2015.

Everybody Deserves Love, Even You. Lynne Heller. Toronto : Lynne Heller, 2004.

[nicknotes2]

Zack Hardt by Michael Stokes

[anarchistin]

Why do you accept being treated like an inmate?

— Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, Declaration

[nochelateral]

Epígrafes de Imperio (2000), Antonio Negri y Michael Hardt.

[nocandnc]

Lacy Hardt VA: Ashley Nichols

Rocky Rickaby VA: Michael Kovach Ashley and Michael: Dating

Me, a Rocky x Lacy shipper: Wow what are the odds! I'm gonna be soooooooo. Normal about this hahaha

[technicolorfamiliar]

Technicolor Familiar Watches Too Many Conrad Veidt Movies Part 3 of ?

Part 1 // Part 2

Anders als die Andern (Different From the Others), 1919 Dir. Richard Oswald ⭐4/5 Watched Nov 15, Archive.org It really breaks my heart that so much of this film was lost and destroyed, and that the story is unfortunately still relevant 100+ years later. Maybe I don't have as much to say about this one because it's so chopped up, and because it's already been written and talked about so much. I am glad it seems to have found its proper place in literature/content about LGBTQ+ history, getting the acknowledgement it deserves. Despite already knowing so much about the movie from various books, podcasts, and documentaries, I was still very affected by the story and performances, especially towards the end. It really hit a nerve, surprisingly so. Connie's Paul is really lovely, tragic, and so sweet with Kurt.

Jew Süss, 1934 Dir. Lothar Mendes ⭐3.5/4 Watched Nov 26, Youtube There's something about the structure and the hazy, dreamy quality of the film itself that makes this seem like a fable. There are parts that are deeply upsetting and chilling despite the mediocre supporting cast. It's imperfect, but definitely did a lot more than other films to create complex and sympathetic Jewish characters in the 1930s (even if still playing on stereotypes). I'm a total sucker for 18th century opulence and fashion so I can’t complain much. And oh boy, does the 18th century suit Connie. He knows how to work the lace and silk to great affect. Some of the things he's doing as Josef are really fascinating and gut-wrenching. He's doing so much vocally, too. He's in an entirely other class compared to many actors of that era. P.S. The scenes with Josef and his mother and daughter were, uh, interesting. I have… mixed feelings.

Rome Express, 1932 Dir. Walter Forde ⭐3/5 Watched Nov 26, Youtube My expectations were pretty low for this one based on some things I'd read online, but it's a cute if slightly baffling train thriller with an ok-ish ensemble. I'm a little biased, my inner child fuckin loves trains so any train movie is at least going to be semi-enjoyable. I was so stressed the whole time about how everyone was handling that apparently very expensive painting. Connie is so extra, though. Why is Zurta eating a banana as soon as he jumps onto a moving train? Why does he hold a gun like ~that~? Why are his fingernails so long?? It's so funny seeing him next to all these tiny British actors. It may partly be how they dressed him for the role, but he makes everyone else look positively shrimpy.

All Through the Night, 1942 Dir. Vincent Sherman ⭐3/5 Watched Nov 27, Vudu Once I finally leaned into how silly this movie was, it was pretty entertaining. The dialogue alone is so stupid, but self aware of how stupid it is. And it features one of my favorite gags of all time: making up gibberish words for technical terms with complete confidence. There's a dog. (Question: Is the dog a nazi like the monkey in Raiders of the Lost Ark? Does the dog know it's complicit in war crimes??) Peter Lorre looks like he'd rather be anywhere else. Mrs. Danvers is there. Some of the visual comedy is actually pretty great -- the dog in the boat at the end when Connie is being totally deadpan serious? Hysterical. (DID THEY BLOW UP THAT DOG?) I think this was the first time I've heard Connie speak German, too.

The Spy in Black, 1939 Dir. Michael Powell ⭐3.5/5 Watched Nov 27, Youtube Interesting that the main character, the person carrying this British movie in the late 1930s, is a German U-boat captain. But wow. I'm obsessed. Hardt's entrance into the hotel? Baa-ing at the sheep? The delicious gluttony with food? Dragging the stupid motorbike up the stairs to his room? "It is evening. And I am grown up."?? We love a sexy, honor driven character like Captain Hardt. Therefore, Valerie Hobson going for the British officer seems totally unlikely and unbelievable. I think I like this movie marginally better than Dark Journey, as far as espionage films go. It's slightly more engaging (but that may be Connie and Valerie Hobson's chemistry) and the story is a little better.

[knuckleduster]

A third mode now appears, which may be labeled poetic in that it combines an aesthetic of coherence with a politics of incoherence. This regime is seen often in certain brands of modernism, particularly the highly formal, inward-looking wing known as “art for art’s sake” but also, more generally, in all manner of fine art. It is labeled “poetic” simply because it aligns itself with poesis, or meaning-making in a general sense. The stakes are not those of metaphysics, in which any image is measured against its original, but rather the semiautonomous “physics” of art, that is, the tricks and techniques that contribute to success or failure within mimetic representation as such. Aristotle was the first to document these tricks and techniques, in his Poetics, and the general personality of the poetic regime as a whole has changed little since. In this regime, lie the great geniuses of their craft (for this is the regime within which the concept of “genius” finds its natural home): Alfred Hitchcock or Billy Wilder, Deleuze or Heidegger, much of modernism, all of minimalism, and so on. But you counter: “Certainly the work of Heidegger or Deleuze was political. Why classify them here?” The answer lies in the specific nature of politics in the two thinkers and the way in which the art of philosophy is elevated over other concerns. My claim is not that these various figures are not political but simply that their politics is incoherent. Eyal Weizman has written of the way in which the Israeli Defense Forces have deployed the teachings of Deleuze and Félix Guattari in the field of battle. This speaks not to a corruption of the thought of Deleuze and Guattari but to the very receptivity of the work to a variety of political implementations (that is, to its “incoherence”). To take Deleuze and Guattari to Gaza is not to blaspheme them but to deploy them. Michael Hardt and Negri, and others have shown also how the rhizome has been adopted as a structuring diagram for systems of hegemonic power. Again this is not to malign Deleuze and Guattari but simply to point out that their work is politically “open source.” The very inability to fix a specific political content of these thinkers is evidence that it is fundamentally poetic (and not ethical). In other words, the “poetic” regime is always receptive to diverse political adaptations, for it leaves the political question open. This is perhaps another way to approach the concept of a “poetic ontology,” the label Badiou gives to both Deleuze and Heidegger. While for his own part, Badiou’s thought is no less poetic, he ultimately departs from the “poetic” regime thanks to an intricate—and militantly specific—political theory.

Alexander R Galloway. “The Unworkable Interface.” New Literary History 39, no. 4 (2008)

[pansexual-pied-piper]

Am 30. Juni 2017 stimmte der Deutsche Bundestag über den Gesetzesentwurf zur "Ehe für alle" ab. Von 623 Abgeordneten (7 der eigentlich 630 Bundestagsmitglieder nahmen an der Abstimmung nicht teil) stimmten 393 für und 226 gegen die Verabschiedung des Gesetzes, welches gleichgeschlechtlichen Paaren die Eheschließung ermöglichen sollte. 4 Abgeordnete (allesamt der CDU/CSU-Fraktion angehörig) enthielten sich.

Bis auf die Stimme der fraktionslosen Abgeordneten Erika Steinbach (ursprünglich CDU, seit 2022 Mitglied der AfD) kamen alle Nein-Stimmen aus den Rängen der CDU/CSU-Fraktion, was bei 225 von 309 Abgeordneten bedeutet, dass knapp 73% der Fraktionsmitglieder gegen die "Ehe für alle" stimmten. (Ja-Stimmen gab es von ca. 24%, die Abwesenden und Enthaltungen machten zusammen ca. 3% der CDU/CSU-Stimmen aus.)

Von den 226 Abgeordneten, die damals gegen den Gesetzesentwurf zur "Ehe für alle" stimmten, amtieren zur Zeit 87 als Mitglieder des Bundestags.

Alle von ihnen sind Mitglieder der CDU/CSU-Fraktion. Im Einzelnen handelt es sich bei diesen Abgeordneten um:

Artur Auernhammer (Bayern)

Dorothee Bär (Bayern)

Thomas Bareiß (Baden-Württemberg)

Dr. André Berghegger (Niedersachsen)

Steffen Bilger (Baden-Württemberg)

Michael Brand (Hessen)

Dr. Reinhard Brandl (Bayern)

Prof. Dr. Helge Braun (Hessen)

Heike Brehmer (Sachsen-Anhalt)

Ralph Brinkhaus (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Alexander Dobrindt (Bayern)

Michael Donth (Baden-Württemberg)

Hansjörg Durz (Bayern)

Hermann Färber (Baden-Württemberg)

Uwe Feiler (Brandenburg)

Enak Ferlemann (Niedersachsen)

Thorsten Frei (Baden-Württemberg)

Dr. Hans-Peter Friedrich (Bayern)

Michael Frieser (Bayern)

Ingo Gädechens (Schleswig-Holstein)

Hermann Gröhe (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Michael Grosse-Brömer (Niedersachsen)

Markus Grübel (Baden-Württemberg)

Manfred Grund (Thüringen)

Oliver Grundmann (Niedersachsen)

Olav Gutting (Baden-Württemberg)

Christian Haase (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Florian Hahn (Bayern)

Jürgen Hardt (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Dr. Stefan Heck (Hessen)

Ansgar Heveling (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Christian Hirte (Thüringen)

Alexander Hoffmann (Bayern)

Hubert Hüppe (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Erich Irlstorfer (Bayern)

Thomas Jarzombek (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Anja Karliczek (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Ronja Kemmer (Baden-Württemberg)

Dr. Georg Kippels (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Volkmar Klein (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Axel Knoerig (Niedersachsen)

Jens Koeppen (Brandenburg)

Markus Koob (Hessen)

Gunther Krichbaum (Baden-Württemberg)

Dr. Günter Krings (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Ulrich Lange (Bayern)

Paul Lehrieder (Bayern)

Dr. Andreas Lenz (Bayern)

Andrea Lindholz (Bayern)

Dr. Carsten Linnemann (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Patricia Lips (Hessen)

Daniela Ludwig (Bayern)

Yvonne Magwas (Sachsen)

Stephan Mayer (Bayern)

Dr. Michael Meister (Hessen)

Dietrich Monstadt (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)

Stefan Müller (Bayern)

Wilfried Oellers (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Florian Oßner (Bayern)

Henning Otte (Niedersachsen)

Thomas Rachel (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Kerstin Radomski (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Alexander Radwan (Bayern)

Alois Rainer (Bayern)

Dr. Peter Ramsauer (Bayern)

Josef Rief (Baden-Württemberg)

Dr. Norbert Röttgen (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Erwin Rüddel (Rheinland-Pfalz)

Albert Rupprecht (Bayern)

Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble (Baden-Württemberg)

Andreas Scheuer (Bayern)

Jana Schimke (Brandenburg)

Patrick Schnieder (Rheinland-Pfalz)

Detlef Seif (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Thomas Silberhorn (Bayern)

Albert Stegemann (Niedersachsen)

Christian Freiherr von Stetten (Baden-Württemberg)

Stephan Stracke (Bayern)

Max Straubinger (Bayern)

Astrid Timmermann-Fechter (Nordrhein-Westfalen)

Dr. Volker Ullrich (Bayern)

Marco Wanderwitz (Sachsen)

Nina Warken (Baden-Württemberg)

Dr. Anja Weisgerber (Bayern)

Annette Widmann-Mauz (Baden-Württemberg)

Klaus-Peter Willsch (Hessen)

Emmi Zeulner (Bayern)

[nextwavefutures]

The Spy in Black

The Spy in Black was the beginning of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s long and successful film partnership. New post at Around the Edges.

The Spy in Black (1939) was the first collaboration between Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger. Pressburger had been in Britain for a few years when Alexander Korda, who ran London Films, asked him to help fix the script. The film is set in 1917, but it’s clearly intended for an audience sensing the imminent war. A German U-boat captain, Captain Hardt, played by Conrad Veidt, is sent on a…